Executive Committee/Board

[Cameron]

Is there any significant difference or advantage is an organization having an Executive Committee versus and Executive Board?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Is there any significant difference or advantage is an organization having an Executive Committee versus and Executive Board?

Yes.

By definition, (i.e., per RONR), one's EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE is a subset of one's EXECUTIVE BOARD.

So, if you don't have a board, then you cannot logically have an executive committee.

See page 464 in RONR tenth edition 2000:

Except in the simplest and smallest local societies, or those holding very frequent regular meetings, it is generally found advisable to provide in the bylaws for a board to be empowered to act for the society when necessary between its regular meetings, and in some cases to have complete control over certain phases of the society’s business.

Such a board is usually known as the executive board, or - in organizations where there is an executive committee within and subordinate to the board as described below - the board of directors, board of managers, or board of trustees.

Any such body is referred to in this book as an executive board, however - regardless of whether there is an executive committee - in cases where the distinction is immaterial.

[Cameron]

Yes.

By definition, (i.e., per RONR), one's EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE is a subset of one's EXECUTIVE BOARD.

So, if you don't have a board, then you cannot logically have an executive committee.

See page 464 in RONR tenth edition 2000:

So if what our organization effectively has as an executive "board" has been always known and described in our By-Laws as the executive "committee," would that mean that we are not necessarily an actual entity/or that we do not truly have an executive power by law?

[Larry Cisar]

So if what our organization effectively has as an executive "board" has been always known and described in our By-Laws as the executive "committee," would that mean that we are not necessarily an actual entity/or that we do not truly have an executive power by law?

No, it only means that you used terminology that is different from RONR.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

So if what our organization effectively has as an executive "board" has been always known and described in our By-Laws as the executive "committee," would that mean that we are not necessarily an actual entity/or that we do not truly have an executive power by law?

It is just terminology. It is just correlation.

It means the thing in your organization which, all this time, has been quacking as a duck, walking like a duck, and smelling like a duck, has been given the title, "hippopotamus".

It means if you try to use Robert's Rules of Order to look up anything about your body, you'll be looking forever, because the label you've chosen is unique to you, and inconsistent with Robert's Rules of Order's usage of its term to label such a body.

[Josh Martin]

So if what our organization effectively has as an executive "board" has been always known and described in our By-Laws as the executive "committee," would that mean that we are not necessarily an actual entity/or that we do not truly have an executive power by law?

If you have only an executive committee, then it is effectively an Executive Board. It does not cease to exist because you have used a non-standard term. In order to avoid confusion, however, it may be best to amend your Bylaws to call it the Executive Board.

[hmtcastle]

it may be best to amend your Bylaws to call it the Executive Board.

Or the board of directors or board of trustees. That way if, down the road, an executive committee is created, there won't be two "executives".